The residential transformation of St Kilda Road is set to continue into with more new apartment plans for the sought-after boulevard.

Wing Tai Asia has lodged plans for a major residential tower at 464-466 St Kilda Road, replacing the former VACC House with an 18-storey mixed-use development designed around a retained heritage podium and a sculpted contemporary tower.

The proposal, prepared under Victoria’s Significant Residential Development with Affordable Housing pathway, would deliver 325 apartments and ground-floor retail across the prominent 4,653 sqm boulevard site in Melbourne’s St Kilda Road North Precinct.

The project centres on the adaptive reuse of the site’s heritage-listed VACC Building, an eight-storey office designed by Bernard Evans that has occupied the address for decades. Planning documents state the development would involve “carefully dismantling and conserving off-site the original metal fabric of the podium visible from St Kilda Road,” before reinstating it as the defining frontage of the new scheme.

Above the restored podium, Wing Tai is proposing a curvilinear residential tower. The scheme includes 172 one-bedroom apartments, 63 two-bedroom apartments, 66 three-bedroom apartments, and 24 four-bedroom apartments, alongside two ground-floor food and beverage tenancies fronting St Kilda Road.

The tower has been designed with substantial articulation and variable setbacks to minimise perceived bulk and maintain view corridors along the boulevard. Urbis, which prepared the planning report, said the design “has been significantly articulated through a curvilinear design” with “an interplay with materials, façade expression and depth” to create visual separation and visual interest.

The proposal also includes 254 basement car spaces, landscaped pedestrian links connecting St Kilda Road and Queens Lane, and a biophilic landscape strategy featuring canopy trees, raised planters, cascading greenery and a glass oculus pool overlooking the eastern frontage.

Planning documents confirm the $270.1 million development will contribute 3 per cent of project costs to the Social Housing Growth Fund as part of the application process.

Wing Tai acquired the St Kilda Road property in 2018 alongside Abacus Property Group for $95.38 million, before later consolidating ownership of the site. The property previously served as the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce headquarters for around 60 years.

The transformation of the St Kilda Rd boulevard is already beginning to materialise, with a number of high-profile projects recently completed, launched, or approaching launch as developers continue to back the long-term appeal of the precinct.

Among the most notable recent completions is Louise by Samuel Property Group, just off the strip on Queens Lane, the same pocket Hirsch &amp; Faigen recently launched The Queensbury. Mirvac is too on the same street with The Albertine, which is approaching completion.

Dexus recently secured approval for its slice of St Kilda Road, while Gurner also has approved plans for the precinct.

Joel Robinson

Wing Tai unveils 325-apartment St Kilda Road tower on former VACC House site

Malaysian developer <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/s-p-setia">SP Setia</a> is the latest to jump into St Leonards booming Transport Oriented Development precinct.

The developer, which has previously delivered Sapphire by the Gardens apartment development in Melbourne, identified the Atchison Street site in 2023. It filed a Scoping Report around 12 months ago, and now has revealed the designs for the new&nbsp;40-storey mixed-use tower.

The State Significant Development Application covers <a href="https://next-portal.urban.com.au/projects/14650/summary">20-22 Atchison Street</a>, a 1,374 sqm site positioned between St Leonards Station and the new Crows Nest Metro station.

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/cox-architecture">COX Architecture</a>, the project would deliver 181 apartments, above a four-storey commercial podium, five basement levels, and new public domain works along Mitchell Street. The apartment mix comprises 35 one-bedroom apartments, 39 one-bedroom-plus-study apartments, 85 two-bedroom apartments, and 22 three-bedroom residences.

The proposal has been lodged as a shop-top housing development under the NSW Government’s TOD planning pathway, which allows increased density around key transport infrastructure. The site sits within the recently rezoned Crows Nest Accelerated TOD Precinct.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b799673d-48e2-46b0-801a-0e33a9330100" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20site.png?VersionId=dPh0UfwfaHpbFL1R7H1cbZNbIW0CHbCC" />

SP Setia acquired the Atchison Street site as part of its continued expansion into the Australian apartment market. In comments made to City &amp; Country (The Edge Malaysia) in 2023, SP Setia President and CEO Datuk Choong Kai Wai described the acquisition as “a strategic move” aligned with the group’s post-pandemic market recovery strategy.

“Our target for this exceptional development is local and overseas buyers, including first-home buyers, downsizers and investors,” Choong said.

The tower has been designed as a slender vertical form rising from a mixed-use podium, with COX Architecture positioning the development as a response to the evolving St Leonards and Crows Nest skyline.

“The purpose of the project is to facilitate the delivery of high-quality housing at a strategically located site and deliver a built tower outcome that is consistent with the desired future character of St Leonards and aligns with the TOD controls,” the design report stated.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b1a85eee-76f7-436c-a6da-73ba827b9b13" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/atchinson%20entry.png?VersionId=dA9jHGPMcm.dDbwk4QfxqWiY5bfh3UVt" />

The podium would incorporate retail uses fronting Atchison Street, commercial tenancies, landscaped communal areas, and pedestrian improvements along Mitchell Street. Vehicle access and loading would be consolidated via Atchison Lane.

Residents would have access to more than 665 sqm of communal indoor and outdoor spaces, while the development proposes 96 parking spaces across five basement levels.

The proposal also includes a commitment for 10 per cent of residential floor space to be allocated toward affordable housing through a monetary contribution.

COX said the tower form responds directly to the emerging high-density character of the precinct while seeking to maximise solar access, cross ventilation, and outlook from apartments.

<img alt="First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2163f85c-f63b-4be3-aafa-f8763976cec5" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/Article%20Feature%20Image%20%28Grid%29_5.png?VersionId=WiAmtIKJ6.ZQ41EtYEQ1fol7AeorKBlL" />

“The building is orientated towards north,” the Apartment Design Guide compliance report noted, adding that the tower’s slim form was driven by the constrained inner-urban site dimensions.

The design also incorporates landscaped setbacks and communal open space at podium level, intended to soften the interface with surrounding streets and improve pedestrian amenity.

The project adds to a growing wave of redevelopment proposals reshaping St Leonards and Crows Nest following the opening of the Sydney Metro City line and the NSW Government’s push for higher-density housing around major transport nodes.

Last week Stockland filed plans just down the road. They want to build a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/601-pacific-highway-st-leonards-nsw-2065">52-storey tower on Pacific Highway</a>.

Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/news/nsw/first-look-stockland-plans-52-storey-538-apartment-st-leonards-tower">First look: Stockland plans 52-storey, 538-apartment St Leonards tower&nbsp;</a>

First look: SP Setia targets St Leonards skyline with 40-storey TOD tower

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/urban-property-group">Urban Property Group</a> has revealed plans for a new mixed-use tower at 10 Dangar Street, Wickham, advancing a proposal that would reshape the southern gateway to Newcastle’s city centre with one of the city’s tallest residential buildings.

The State Significant Development proposal, now on exhibition, seeks approval for a <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/bowline-10-dangar-street-wickham-nsw-2293">43-storey tower</a> immediately adjacent to the Newcastle Interchange. The project would deliver around 200 apartments, including 42 affordable housing dwellings, alongside 99 co-living units, a 171-room hotel, retail space, and new public domain integrated through the site.

The scheme marks a significant escalation of plans previously approved for the site. Urban Property Group took over the prominent 2,904 sqm parcel, where excavation and demolition had already commenced under an earlier consent for a 14-storey mixed-use development.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="58a96dd9-407f-4d20-86b4-94e4bfeef74b" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20podium.png?VersionId=LGlf08pdFGAZDzvx_CXC4XakHNZRuEE0" />

Designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/sjb-architects">SJB</a>, the tower has been conceived as a landmark transit-oriented development anchored to the Newcastle Interchange precinct. The proposal includes 245 build-to-sell apartments across a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom residences, as well as two penthouses. Fifteen apartments and one operational unit are earmarked for NDIS housing. The co-living component would add a further 99 units, while the podium would accommodate retail uses and hotel facilities.

SJB said the site presents “a valuable opportunity to anchor the precinct by setting the standard for design, active ground planes and character at the key southern gateway.”

The architecture responds directly to the site’s position beside major transport infrastructure and within one of Newcastle’s fastest-evolving urban renewal precincts. The tower form sits above a sculpted podium designed to frame new public spaces, including a through-site pedestrian link connecting Station Street to Hannell Street, landscaped plazas, and activated retail edges.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="a7bd6ff0-f7db-4ce8-a6dc-ea56e72c6149" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20lanne.png?VersionId=xzf39VADyhj7zBQY2I9fx9vI62u2tuSb" />

The design report describes the project as part of the broader transition of Wickham into “a vibrant, high-quality mixed-use urban precinct” that leverages proximity to the station, open space, and regional connectivity.

A detailed public art strategy has also been prepared for the development. The strategy positions the project as “a transit-oriented development of state significance at the gateway to Newcastle’s city centre” and outlines a series of integrated artworks responding to Newcastle’s industrial and transport heritage.

Creative Road’s curatorial framework for the project, titled Unveil, draws on “stratified surfaces, carved volumes, and light-filled apertures” while referencing Newcastle’s transformation from an industrial city into a contemporary education and technology hub.

<img alt="First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s next supertower at Wickham interchange" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="77a882bb-14b1-4d28-99ff-9438e39508c0" src="https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/inline-images/wickham%20site.png?VersionId=cevgo_vN0eKPK78P8YcEu3mKPLkpFqE7" />

The proposal is being advanced through the NSW Housing Delivery Authority pathway after being declared State Significant Development in June 2025. The accompanying scoping report states the development aims to “maximise the site’s proximity to the Newcastle Interchange by delivering transit-oriented development” while increasing housing supply and affordable housing provision within the Newcastle LGA.

Urban Property Group’s plans align with the long-term strategic vision established under the Wickham Master Plan, which identified the interchange precinct as suitable for substantial uplift in height and density. The current proposal would significantly intensify that vision, positioning the tower among the tallest developments proposed for Newcastle.

The site sits immediately north of the Newcastle Interchange, bounded by Dangar Street, Hannell Street, and Charles Street. It is surrounded by a rapidly growing cluster of residential towers and mixed-use projects that have emerged following the completion of the light rail and transport interchange.

First look: Urban Property Group unveils Newcastle’s latest tower at Wickham interchange

Bottega House has completed settlement of a landmark riverfront site in Macquarie Street, St Lucia, representing its first major Brisbane development.&nbsp;

Positioned on the banks of the Brisbane River, the <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/180-macquarie-street-st-lucia-qld-4067">premium site at 180 Macquarie Street</a> features uninterrupted river frontage in one of Brisbane’s most tightly held residential precincts.&nbsp;

The proposed development, currently under assessment with Brisbane City Council, has been designed by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/architects/plus-studio">Plus Studio</a> with interiors by <a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/interior-designers/mim-design">Mim Design</a> and will deliver a boutique collection of premium residences positioned specifically for owner occupiers and downsizers.&nbsp;

The residences are set to redefine luxury apartment living in the area, with a focus on architectural quality, refined finishes, landscape integration and elevated amenities including curated wellness facilities, resort-style pools and recreation spaces rarely seen in the local market.&nbsp;

Exclusive sales for the project will be led by Keenan &amp; Byrne, ahead of an anticipated launch later this year.&nbsp;

Bottega House Managing Director Nick Malloch said the project reflects the group’s ambition to deliver a highly curated residential offering within one of Brisbane’s most tightly held precincts.&nbsp;

“This is an incredibly rare riverfront opportunity and one we have approached with a long-term perspective,” Malloch said.&nbsp;

“Our vision from the outset was to create a boutique collection of residences that feel more like private homes than traditional apartments, with generous proportions, refined finishes and exceptional amenity throughout."

Malloch says there is a&nbsp;lack of premium owner-occupier stock of this quality in the market, particularly for downsizers wanting space, privacy and a true lifestyle offering without compromise.&nbsp;

"Demand is expected to be strong given the scarcity of premium riverfront opportunities of this nature within Brisbane’s inner-west."&nbsp;

Bottega House secures landmark riverfront site in St Lucia 

<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-6" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:84a2af5e-d7cf-4ddf-922a-f4d44d6c6caa-2" dir="auto">
<section data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-2" data-turn="assistant" data-turn-id="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" data-turn-id-container="request-WEB:5a5ab36c-8dd3-454c-b456-c501f22f0eb4-0" dir="auto">
The arrival of the first piling rig officially marks the commencement of construction at SIERA’s new beachside apartment development, Exhale, in Northcliffe.

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/new-apartments/exhale-surfers-paradise-8-enderley-avenue-surfers-paradise-qld-4217">Exhale</a>, a glass-encased tower featuring 54 large-scale apartments at 8 Enderley Avenue, is SIERA’s third Gold Coast development. It follows the recently completed PIPIS Bilinga beachfront project, which achieved suburb-record prices, and the soon-to-be-completed Chevron Island development, Tapestry.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359603]

<a href="https://www.apartments.com.au/developers/siera">SIERA</a> Founder and Managing Director Brent Thompson said the arrival of the piling rig represented a significant milestone for the development, which is scheduled for completion in late 2028.

Over the next month, around 260 piles are expected to be installed as work progresses on the basement structure. The building is anticipated to rise above ground level early next year, before unveiling its sculptural glass curtain wall, developed in collaboration with specialist façade engineers.

“The façade was designed to maximise panoramic coastal views while creating a distinctive architectural identity,” Thompson said.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=355935]

Designed by BDA Architecture, Exhale will comprise just 54 two- and three-bedroom residences across 26 levels, a level of low-density living rarely delivered in this beachside pocket between Surfers Paradise and Broadbeach.

The project has been conceived as a resident-only building, with no short-stay accommodation permitted. SIERA says the model is intended to appeal to long-term owner-occupiers rather than transient holiday demand.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=361052]

Residences have been designed with large-format layouts and expansive glazing, with most apartments featuring more than 30 metres of glass frontage to maximise natural light and ocean views.

The amenity offering spans two levels and centres on wellness and lifestyle, including a heated magnesium pool, sauna, yoga and Pilates studio, gymnasium, private dining facilities, cinema lounge, and dedicated surfcraft storage.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=112661 project_image_fid=359607]

More than half of the apartments have already sold. SIERA has also opened a sales gallery for Exhale at its Chevron Island commercial premises, near its Tapestry tower and the site of its second Chevron Island apartment development, which is slated to launch in early 2027.
</section>
</section>

[smartcode_project_cta:default project_id=112661]

SIERA kicks off construction at Northcliffe tower Exhale

Urban Affairs

<html><body>
Melbourne loves its radial train lines. For over a century they have shunted commuters in and out of the centre of the city and even throughout the automobile age they've continued to be the best way to access the centre of the city as well as some peripheral centres based around junctions like Richmond, South Yarra and North Melbourne.

In the <a href="/news/the-outer-circle-documentary-review">Outer Circle documentary</a>, released in December last year, we learned politicians from over a century ago were just as susceptible of making curious decisions as modern day politicians when it comes to large-scale transport infrastructure projects - think East-West Link.

The last remaining operating section of the Outer Circle is the Alamein line. According to a report in 2010 in the <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/metro-says-williamstown-and-alemein-lines-will-be-first-to-close-if-train-system-melst-down/story-e6frf7jo-1225818598652">Herald Sun</a>, the Alamein line only carries 1.5% of all passengers across the metropolitan rail network and in a <a href="http://www.ptua.org.au/2010/09/28/alamein-line-upgrade-call/">media release from PTUA</a> around the same time, the 1.5% figure reported in the Herald Sun translates into 1.8 million boardings per year.

Alamein is a short branch serving a stable population and timetable-roulette over the past 10 years seems to have conspired to relegate the Alamein line to low (if any) growth. Thanks to election promises in 2010, the Ballieu Government commissioned multiple rail line studies early on in its term one of which was the Rowville Rail Line.

Perhaps most annoyingly, the Rowville study's scope was ring-fenced and only encapsulated the North and Wellington road corridors - essentially just creating another branch line from the Dandenong corridor.

One of the findings from the Rowville Rail study was that it required extra capacity on the Dandenong corridor for trains to operate to and from the city and thus the new line would be dependent on Dandenong corridor upgrades and the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project from South Yarra to Kensington.

Rather than create another radial train service, wouldn't it be more prudent to start thinking outside the box by connecting existing lines and start serving major employment, education and high-potential residential growth zones in worthy suburban areas?

Don't all groan at once, but I think there's a legitimate case for another study to look into the impact, costs and benefits of cross-connecting the Alamein line with the Dandenong corridor and the points listed below are meant only as a conversation starter.

Furthermore it would also be interesting to see how a connection and services running between the Alamein and Dandenong corridors might improve the case for the Rowville line given the employment, retail and educational precincts it would connect: Swinburne University, Camberwell, Holmesglen Institute, Chadstone, Oakleigh, Monash University &amp; Mulgrave.

Is it time to give the Alamein line a greater purpose?

<iframe frameborder="0" height="600" scrolling="no" src="https://mapsengine.google.com/map/embed?mid=zZQXWc1VtNDo.kKnKWQL6NjGI" width="100%"></iframe>

The map above serves only as a reference point to begin the conversation. Click the individual components for more detail or click the full screen button in the top right corner of the map to view the detail in another window.

There are many ideas for connecting this region and I'm by no means saying the above is the absolute best, I've merely selected it as it's likely to be the more expensive option (other ideas prevalent right across the web include a tunnel along the old Outer Circle corridor and connecting with East Malvern Station and Chadstone to Oakleigh).

<h2>Phase 1</h2>

The flagship link. A tunnel (red line) from Ashburton running south-east to Holmesglen with a new set of interchange platforms alongside and underneath Warrigal Road to enable connectivity with the Glen Waverley line. The tunnel would then head south-west to run under Chadstone with a new station located on site and then the tunnel would run south-east once more to connect with two new underground platforms at Oakleigh.

Changes to the existing Alamein corridor (green line) would involve grade separations at Riversdale and Prospect Hill Roads resulting in a new station in a trench and interfaced directly with Riversdale road in turn making Willison Station redundant. A new fourth platform at Camberwell to act as a service terminus and a relocated Burwood station in order to better connect the line with the #75 trams and the Toorak Road precinct.

The existing track from Alamein to Ashburton from the south would be removed and re-instated as parkland with station buildings at Alamein, Willison and the old Burwood station re-purposed for community or commercial facilities and a new dedicated high-frequency bus would run between Ashburton and Darling stations through the catchment of the existing Alamein station (grey line).

Upon opening, services would shuttle between Oakleigh and Camberwell on 10 minute or better frequencies.

<h2>Phase 2</h2>

Project area 1: between Camberwell and Burnley there would be a fourth track laid in the existing reservation (orange line) and new platforms at Auburn, Glenferrie and Hawthorn. The map also attempts to depict the associated bridge widening works required between Hawthorn and the Glen Waverley line flyovers at Burnley.

Project area 2: in essence building the recommended route as outlined in the Rowville Rail Line study (light and dark blue lines - map ends in Mulgrave, but the assumption is to build the entire line to Rowville).

Upon opening of the second phase, the Camberwell-Oakleigh shuttle would morph into a much larger rail line running from Rowville direct to Flinders Street via Chadstone and Camberwell and all trains from the existing Ringwood corridor would only stop at Camberwell, Glenferrie and Richmond.

<h2>Some statistics on journeys to work</h2>

Some food for thought: the three main municipalities directly affected by this project are Boroondarra, Stonnington and Monash and the following journeys to work data has been pulled from population and demography consultancy <a href="http://home.id.com.au/">.id's</a> public site.

In 2011 <a href="http://profile.id.com.au/boroondara/workers">Boroondarra</a> had 61,000 employed persons, 31% of which lived in the municipality. 9% of people employed in Boroondarra travel from Glen Eira - Caulfield (1,293 or 2.1%), Stonnington - Malvern (1,363, 2.2%), Monash - South West (694, 1.0%), Monash - Waverley West (1,443, 2.3%), Monash - Waverley East (775, 1.3%).

<a href="http://profile.id.com.au/stonnington/workers">Stonnington</a>, which would gain one new station and an expanded interchange station, had 45,000 employed persons in 2011 and only 23% live in the same municipality. The breakdown of people who travel from outside the municipality is as follows: Glen Eira - Caulfield (2,910 or 6.4%), Monash - South West (1,313, 2.9%), Monash - Waverley West (1,367, 3.0%), Monash - Waverley East (847, 1.9%), Boroondarra - Camberwell South (1,505, 3.3%), Boroondarra - Hawthorn (1,006, 2.2%), Whitehorse - Box Hill (755, 1.7%).

<a href="http://profile.id.com.au/monash/workers">Monash</a> in 2011 had 89,000 employed persons, 23% living in the municipality. Much of workforce who travels to Monash lives to the south and east of the municipality however just under 7% travel from adjacent municipalities located near this project. Broken down that is: Boroondarra - Camberwell North &amp; South (2,237 or 2.5%), Stonnington - Malvern (1,486, 1.7%), Glen Eira - Caulfield (2,392, 2.7%).

Train travel, like car commuters on freeways, enables people to live greater distances from their workplace - and although policy should favour distances being reduced rather than increased - I think patronage forecasts would need to have catchment areas expanded, especially as Chadstone remains a key precinct in the region and attracts shoppers from right across the metropolitan area.

<h2>Future development options and value capture</h2>

This is Apartments.com.au and it just wouldn't be cricket if we didn't at least briefly look at redevelopment potential.

Beginning in Malvern East where Chadstone is located, Stonnington have liberally applied the new Residential Growth Zone to Dandenong Road and have continued to apply it along Warrigal Road from the intersection of Dandenong Road all the way up to Holmesglen Station. The Warrigal Road corridor is also interspersed with the mixed-use Commercial Zone 1 (C1Z) allowing for larger buildings.

The <a href="/buildings/holmes-hill-apartments-70-batesford-road-chadstone">Holmes Hill development at 70 Batesford Road</a> (C1Z), just off Warrigal Road approximately 200m from the existing Holmesglen station is a prime example of what is possible for increasing densities near the new or upgraded stations.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/holmes_hill_1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Holmes Hill - 70 Batesford Road, Chadstone. Image © holmeshill.com.au"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="348" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/holmes_hill_1.jpg?itok=s2l3b_wl" title="Holmes Hill - 70 Batesford Road, Chadstone. Image © holmeshill.com.au" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Holmes Hill - 70 Batesford Road, Chadstone. Image © holmeshill.com.au</figcaption></figure>In terms of areas where the rail corridor and service already exists, the strip along Toorak Road where Burwood station could possibly be re-zoned on the Boroondarra Planning scheme as C1Z. And despite Boroondarra's lack of Residential Growth Zone, they do have a small, but not insignificant amount of land zoned General Residential Zone - Schedule 5 (allows up to 3 levels on site) near enough to the Alamein corridor. Oakleigh is already seeing its CBD fringes being redeveloped thanks to the area zoned as C1Z with a large amount of General Residential zone adjoining it.

I've not read or come across examples on how value capture systems work in their entirety so I would be interested to hear reader's thoughts on how a value capture system could be applied on a local/regional basis to help fund any project that may come to fruition.

<h2>What about the cost?</h2>

Cost of a study: the Rowville Rail Line study cost $2 million, and quite frankly it was money well-spent and a similar amount should be allocated to look at making the Alamein line more relevant in the 21st century.

Cost of the proposal as shown above: Well that's what the study would be for! Nevertheless, here's a not-so-scientific approach at having a stab at the cost.

Taking a broader look around the country, one project that springs to mind - in terms of getting a ballpark cost figure to potentially apply to the phase 1 proposal above - is Sydney's North West Rail Link. The NWRL is a 23 kilometre line, approximately 15km of which will be underground, stretching from Epping out to Sydney's outskirts.

The total cost of the NWRL is $8.3 billion according to its <a href="http://nwrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/The-Project/Project-Overview">website</a> - underground rail, elevated rail, stations and train procurement - or better represented as a $360 million per kilometre figure.

Using the per kilometre figure from the NWRL and applying it to the 5.5km tunnel depicted in the map, that would total a smidge under $2 billion. The 5-6 kilometres of upgrade work along the existing Alamein line - primarily grade separations, upgrades to Camberwell Station and the relocation of Burwood station - would, clearly, cost a lot less on a per kilometre basis than that of the tunnels.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamein_railway_station">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

The Alamein line: time for a new purpose?

<html><body>
On Monday night, Engineers Australia held their annual <a href="http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/events/transport-year-review">Transport: year in review</a> event at the Park Hyatt which included four panelists in front of a 100+ strong audience. Commentary was broad-based and thoroughly interesting if politics and city building piques your interest.

The panelists included The Age Transport reporter <a href="https://twitter.com/adamlcarey">Adam Carey</a>, Grattan Institute CEO <a href="http://grattan.edu.au/people/bio/john-daley/">John Daley</a>, Member of the Ministerial Advisory Committee for Plan Melbourne Professor <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/business/staff/johnsta">John Stanley</a> and CEO of the Committee for Melbourne <a href="https://twitter.com/committee4melb">Kate Roffey</a>.

Each of the panelists provided a wide range of views starting with Adam Carey giving his perspective on the way Transport policy played out both at the start of the year and during the election campaign.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en">
On <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ewlink?src=hash">#ewlink</a>: 'nobody in our community can explain why <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ewlink?src=hash">#ewlink</a> is a good project' - John Daley <a href="https://twitter.com/GrattanInst">@GrattanInst</a> <a href="http://t.co/laLl16Ivjr">pic.twitter.com/laLl16Ivjr</a>
— Apartments.com.au (@UrbanMelbourne) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/UrbanMelbourne/status/541856978708873216">December 8, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>John Daley's focus on transparency and governance is best characterised when he lamented "We are in a world where there is no transparency in the way [transport] projects are selected". The audience liked John's quip when he labelled the elephant-in-the-room 'East-West-East link' project as well.

Kate Roffey focused on many issues but one which stuck out was the poignant reminder that in the not too distant future the new government will be dealing with the winding down of the automotive manufacturing sector. Kate Roffey also argued that many of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects such as the Pakenham/Cranbourne corridor project should be prioritised as it predominantly involved private capital and that it will go a long way to offsetting the impending job pain.

John Stanley brought a planning angle to the discussion and painted a picture when he highlighted the contrast in thinking at a State and Provincial level in Victoria and Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
John Stanley - 'I asked Ontario and BC reps what major road projects are underway, they looked at me like I was from a different planet'
— Apartments.com.au (@UrbanMelbourne) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/UrbanMelbourne/status/541861110404501504">December 8, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>Similarly John Stanley opined that Melbourne should slow its growth on the fringe and the heavy lifting for transport projects over the longer term should focus on connecting new residential development in the middle ring, where most of the metropolitan area's jobs are located.

<h2>Q&amp;A Session</h2>

Post presentations, the Q&amp;A session took on a more free-flowing discussion with many of the overarching themes revolving around:

<ul>
<li>Will the new Infrastructure Victoria agency have teeth? To what extent will local government have a role in both Infrastructure Victoria and the Metropolitan Planning Authority?</li>
	<li>Bi-partisan approach to transport policy and prioritisation is resulting in a sense in the community that nothing is being done to attack congestion, with the contrast being made with Sydney where a panelist believed the opposite were true.</li>
	<li>William McDougall, sitting in the audience (who previously presented at our <a href="https://urbanmelbourne.info/transport/2014/02/01/gmug-2013-william-mcdougall-on-future-transport-trends-for-cities">2013 Melbourne Knowledge Week event</a>), queried the panel on whether they believed the current models used to assess the public net worth of a project were adequate.
	<ul>
<li>One answer highlighted by Kate Roffey was the approach that UK cities are taking, in particular the Greater Manchester region. A summary of this approach can be seen in a <a href="http://www.kpmg.com/AU/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/uk-city-deal-economic-growth-productivity.pdf">recent publication</a> by KPMG and the Property Council of Australia.</li>
	</ul>
</li>
	<li>The middle ring of Melbourne needs to have far more focus on connectivity, with arterial road expansion in conjunction with accelerated introduction of more smart bus and local bus routes.</li>
	<li>Each panelist was asked to comment on "what should the new government have done or set in motion by January 1 2015". Their responses varied however an ever present theme amongst them: setting real expectations on the transport policies taken to the recent election.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Comment</h2>

Transport policy and projects did play a large role in media coverage during the year and in particular in the lead up to and during the election campaign as Kate Roffey pointed to in her opening remarks. Can voter's minds be further expanded to include land-use and how it affects them on top of the standard kitchen table policy areas of jobs, health and education?

I'd argue in no uncertain terms that the way we house ourselves and the way we transport ourselves - the fundamental way we use the land we inhabit - to and from school, work and leisure (remember: living isn't all about working!) should be the top issue with health and education playing a secondary yet complimentary role.

Transport for so many across Melbourne is about being forced into utilising private vehicles traveling to, from and within auto-centric suburbia which leaves these people at higher risk of vulnerability to external factors such as fuel price spikes. The lazy politicians in both the Liberal/Labor parties and in the road lobbies will bleat on about the need for a "balanced" approach to transport policy and expenditure but this just flies in the face of reality.

Sustainable and public transport use has increased in terms of mode share over recent years but continuing high population growth means that already over-used private transport is still growing and contributing to increasing congestion in the mode of transport that most Melburnians are locked in to. It's a vicious circle.

Perhaps when prosecuting the case for prioritising public transport over private transport investment - especially to the centre-right of the political spectrum as they appear to be struggling just that little bit more than the centre-left - the argument should be framed around some of the core Liberal values of individual choice and competition.

Individuals (and families) for the most part have limited choice in the way they spend their transport dollars and this lack of competition deprives the individual from pursuing the maximum amount of job and lifestyle opportunities compared to those living in competition-rich areas.

Is it not a quasi neo-liberal/conservative philosophy to maintain and ensure the individual (and family unit) has as much access to opportunities as possible for their own life pursuits?

Sitting in worsening traffic, bereft politicians talking of 'balancing transport priorities' and in reality applying expensive band-aid status quo solutions (more commuter Freeways) without attacking the core problem - that there's simply too many people required to use cars in the first place - is unproductive, lazy and likely to further fracture society by locking away opportunities.

Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/lonely-over-christmas-a-snapshot-of-social-isolation-in-the-suburbs-34810">Lonely over Christmas: a snapshot of social isolation in the suburbs</a>.

Lead image courtesy Norman Bear.
</body></html>

Highlights from Engineers Australia transport year in review

<html><body>
Working at Tract Consultants near Bridge Road in Richmond gives me a front-row seat on the city's sad trend of high-street decline. Every day, I watch one of the city's key retail strips slowly lose tenants. Walking to get my lunch, I often pass three or four empty shops in a row - and the ones that are still open are having closing-down sales. My guess is that 30% of the shops are vacant.

This decline has been going on for a while, but yesterday I noticed a new sign of desperation: a number of shops on the street are displaying this poster in their windows.

<img alt="" height="429" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/pictures/article-images/free-parking-sign-bridge-road.jpg" width="286">

This campaign felt misguided to me, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why.

That evening I walked past the new H&amp;M and UNIQLO - where there are still queues out the door on some nights. Next, I got home and unwrapped a parcel, containing a new pair of shoes I'd bought online, cheaply, from Asos in England.

It dawned on me - rather guiltily - that if our inner-urban shopping strips die, parking won't be the reason.

High-street retailers face two brutal competitors, in the form of big-box retail and online shopfronts. Both are vastly better at marketing, and have the advantage of advanced supply chains and economies of scale. This enables them to easily undercut small operators, even displacing the outlet stores of Bridge Road. They're simply more competitive - if you're only looking at prices.

The thing is, nobody dreams of living on a quaint little street with a friendly local lKEA, Zara and DFO. Large retailers, while cheap, are just as anonymous as eBay; they add no identity to the places they set up in, nor do their owners truly belong to the community in the way a small business owner does.

Small retailers are essential to the fine-grained, individual appeal of our Main Streets. These active, diverse frontages create the walkable, interesting environments that Australians from other cities marvel at. In short, small retail is an essential part of Melbourne's livability.

Despite this vital contribution to our city, the vacancies I see on Bridge Road suggest that we're collectively putting low prices first - or that at times we're content to act as 'free riders' by enjoying these beautiful streets while shopping in cheaper, less distinctive places. Maybe this is because we're subject to a constant economic narrative of 'belt-tightening'; maybe we just like having more stuff. Maybe shopping on the couch with iPad in hand is just easier.

Either way, the fact that residential development in these areas is moving at a crawl certainly isn't helping local retailers keep up. Sure, there are some apartment towers popping up behind the shops, buts this growth is too slow to offset the loss of regional customers. The local customer base isn't growing very fast, but the overheads - and competitors - are. Meanwhile, residential growth at the fringe (and in the CBD) continues apace, where regulations are more conducive.

I spoke to The University of Melbourne's Kim Dovey, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, and he agrees that parking isn't the problem - but he isn't convinced that retail is in serious trouble.

<blockquote>
Bridge Road might be losing some retail space to online competitors, but high street retail will generally be fine. I'm hopeful that the less successful strips will become mixed spaces, with small-scale production workshops and studios filling the gaps between surviving stores.
<cite>Kim Dovey, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, University of Melbourne</cite>
</blockquote>

I like the vision of Bridge Road as a place where things get made. Watching a 3D printer do its thing might be just as good as window shopping. I'm also hopeful that a rise in shop-top residential could effectively cross-subsidise street retailers, providing landlords with a new income stream and enabling them to ease off on retail rental rates, which are often blamed for high vacancy rates. Perhaps Bridge Road will simply shift from its regional factory outlet role into one focused on day-to­day local needs; this is working very well for Swan Street nearby.

Tract will be conducting a corporate forum on revitalizing Main Streets later this year, focusing on our doorstep - Bridge Road. Hosted from some vacant Bridge Road shops, our range of local and interstate experts will shed some light on why some streets thrive and why others dwindle.

From what I've seen, the successful Main Streets display authenticity, localism, and retail diversity. They need amenity from high quality streetscapes, an active trader association, and a growing residential catchment. Parking does matter, but it's only one factor among many and it doesn't solely explain the decline of Bridge Road. I look forward to a broader discussion later this year to bring out some really inspired ideas for the future of this iconic street.

Thami Croeser is an Assistant Town Planner at Tract Consultants and studies at the University of Melbourne. This article first appeared in Planning Institute of Australia, Victoria Division's "Planning News" June 2014 issue.
</body></html>

Tract TC

Will free parking save Bridge Road?

<html><body>
The great thing about Twitter is common people get to interact with people they normally wouldn't get to. Celebrities, politicians, journalists are all fair game. Where as you'd get arrested if you went round to The Lodge and started yelling at Tony Abbott through the intercom at his front gate, you can go nuts within 140 characters on his managed Twitter account. With a bit of luck, his assistant Peta Credlin may even tweet an inane response about how they've stopped the boats. Ah, free speech at its best.

Of course not everyone is too busy embarrassing themselves on the world stage to tweet for themselves. Matthew Guy is one of those people who lets the world know his own thoughts, and recently I was privileged enough to share some Twitter action with him (all eight words of it!):

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/MatthewGuyMP">@MatthewGuyMP</a> are you seriously gonna expand melb's UGB again? At this rate melb will reach adelaide by the time I die! Sprawl is killing us
— Martin Mankowski (@HobosRunning) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/HobosRunning/statuses/476968551819923457">June 12, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/HobosRunning">@HobosRunning</a> No, we have made it clear we won't.
— Matthew Guy MP (@MatthewGuyMP) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/MatthewGuyMP/statuses/476973267408781312">June 12, 2014</a>
</blockquote>

"Thank god for that!", I thought. In 2012, he expanded Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by 5,858 hectares, a mere two years after Justin Madden had expanded it by 43,000 hectares. Worse still, he promised to review it every year! Fast forward two more years and it seems common sense had prevailed. With Minister Guy finally putting a permanent freeze on the UGB, Melbourne's obsession with the suburbs will finally be coming to a close, right? Wrong!

As part of Mr. Guy's crusade to reform planning zones, he decided to let councils decide what level of development they would like to see in their municipalities. Lo and behold the inner-city councils of Boroondara, Bayside and Stonnington promptly resigned large chunks of their fiefdoms to two stories. Hands up who didn't see that happening? It would be like letting motorists set the maximum speed limit and watching everyone clean each other up on the freeway at 300 km/h.

Letting NIMBY-driven councils dictate planning is always going to end in tears; local newspapers in particular love a good council bashing story, leaving them to pander to a whinging NIMBY minority rather than implement a much needed long term vision. So much so, that in a <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/rich-suburbs-have-highrise-development-locked-out-in-new-zonings-20140616-3a8mb">recent article</a> in The Age, Mary Drost - convener of the anti-development group Planning Backlash - proclaims to be a proud NIMBY! That's like saying you are proud to be a racist; you're essentially saying you are happy to be ignorant and selfish. Apartments.com.au was right to suggest that article should have been called something else (see below):

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" lang="en">
Like this comment "This headline should read "selfish baby boomers condemn subsequent generations to housing misery" <a href="http://t.co/sTwHC5iCX9">http://t.co/sTwHC5iCX9</a>
— Apartments.com.au (@UrbanMelbourne) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/UrbanMelbourne/statuses/478693957824565248">June 17, 2014</a>
</blockquote>

Of course we have been here before; do we dare mention the failed Camberwell Station development? The perfect place for much needed density due to its enviable transport links, it was shot down by a group of NIMBYs led up by former resident and Hollywood celebrity Geoffrey Rush.

Melbourne is a rapidly growing city, with the state government's own figures forecasting a population of 7.8 million by 2051. Now that we have supposedly contained the UGB (and rightfully so) and blackballed a large chunk of the middle-band suburbs from medium and high density development, where the hell is everyone going to live?

With selfish NIMBYs now refusing to share their close-to-the-CBD, amenity-rich suburbs with anyone else, we'll have no choice but to abandon the boundary and push even more people into the outer suburbs. Further and further the boundary will creep, condemning people to a life of longer and longer car dependent trips to everything including work, entertainment and shopping. We'll have whole generations of kids who think that Melbourne's CBD is nothing but a mythical utopia, a faraway land requiring a Lord of the Rings type quest to reach it by foot or congested freeway.

You can just imagine them walking through the middle-band suburbs, weary from their journey from another world, as they look on jealously at Gollum-style creatures wrapping their protective arms around their single story properties snarling "My precious!!!". The selfishness of these NIMBYs is quite disturbing; I struggle to comprehend the complete lack of regard or empathy for where future generations are going to live just because they are nice and cozy in their renovated Victorian cottage.

So where does this leave Matthew Guy? On the one hand he is a champion of density, one who has overseen massive change in Melbourne's skyline and therefore inner-city housing supply. He has correctly pushed for the creation of Fishermans Bend as a inner-city residential growth area, allowing 80,000 people the chance to live in an area where car dependence will be a thing of the past. And he was right to take planning control away from nominated activity hubs such as Footscray, making sure that high density development happens in appropriate areas along transport corridors.

Yet on the other hand he has endorsed a questionable policy that will prevent many other suitable candidates like Camberwell, Hawthorn, Kew and Sandringham gaining a similar outcome, leaving the conundrum of where to house Melbourne's growing population unresolved. Dare I suggest a real Jekyll and Hyde minister if there ever was one, making great Aussie singer/songwriter Paul Kelly seem prophetic when he sang "What makes such a sweet Guy turn so mean?"

Mr. Guy: which is the legacy you wish to leave? A legacy highlighted by quelling the scourge that is suburban sprawl, or one of appeasing a few selfish NIMBYs... time will tell.
</body></html>

TheHeadOnTheDoor

What makes such a sweet Guy turn so mean?

<html><body>
Urban.com.au's chat with Neometro Director James Tutton continues, following the <a href="/news/james-tutton-on-all-things-urban" target="_blank">first part</a> published earlier this week.

Neometro was the first property developer in Australia to gain <a href="http://www.bcorporation.net/" target="_blank">B Corporation</a> status - what are you doing above and beyond the norm?

To become a B Corporation member we really didn't have to change much in terms of what we were doing, although we did need to document a lot of what we were doing by way of community engagement, ESD, governance, equity participation from members, directors and so forth. A great example would be what we call in Australia the HR section of the questionnaires; if a staff member leaves your organisation under good terms - do you welcome them back should they want to return?

We had to document our policy where if a staff member expresses an interest in coming back, even if we don't have a job for them, we kind of just find one for them.

Can the process of gaining B Corporation status be daunting?

The experience can be daunting, there's no two ways about it. I think its quite sensible that the process is broken into two stages.

Initially you jump online, register, complete the questionnaires and I think we came up with roughly 70% - we're now on 86%. Post assessment, B Lab contact the prospective member and identify areas that need to change in your business in order to get certification. Thereafter what is effectively a random audit is conducted prior to certification.

Why is B Corporation status important in Australia?

I've worked quite a lot in the not-for-profit sector and I've seen the lack of entrepreneurialism in the sector. For profit used in the right way can be a massive force for good, ultimately though for-profit tends to attract the hungrier people, smarter people. Leveraging capitalism for positive social, community and environmental outcomes is not necessarily the norm in Australia.

The challenge is there hasn't been a language and metric around that and that's definitely emerging in America and continental Europe more than Australia. Currently there's a real tribe of like-minded entrepreneurs in Australia that aren't satisfied with merely working to climb the corporate ladder - <a href="http://www.bcorporation.net/" target="_blank">B Corporation</a> can give recognition to those people willing to make a difference.

Moving to your current project, 9 Smith Street. You've gone to effort to establish pop-up venues within the existing structure prior to construction. What purpose does this serve when the existing building is to be demolished?

We have <a href="https://www.facebook.com/3000acres" target="_blank">3000 acres</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/slopesprojects" target="_blank">Slopes Gallery</a> and <a href="http://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/place-holder-pops-fitzroy" target="_blank">Place Holder</a> which I feel can create or enhance the sense of community. Our display suite sits in behind Place Holder; personally I take the view that by offering people a well designed, beautiful space to engage and meet, it's a highly desirable outcome, even if they are temporary.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/9SMITH_IMAGES_FINAL_1_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Image © Neometro"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/9SMITH_IMAGES_FINAL_1_0.jpg?itok=u2IMyYHC" style="height:336px; width:580px" title="Image © Neometro"></a>

<figcaption>Image © Neometro</figcaption></figure>When will construction commence at 9 Smith Street?

We've committed to a twelve month period for the pop-up businesses, so early 2015 is anticipated start.

Will Neometro be in charge of the choice of commercial tenants for 9 Smith Street?

Absolutely, often you could look at some of our leasing decisions and say that's uncommericial. From our perspective if we develop a building and place a KFC down stairs, not only does that not sit well with us in terms of our social views, but when prospective buyers go reference our past projects and see that... it's a terrible impression.

The natural extension then becomes does Neometro have an ideal tenant in mind for 9 Smith Street?

Including retail is a bit of a no brainer, but I feel there's a real risk when you get dominated by hospitality. This precinct hasn't really attracted corporate retailers and I suspect that will be the case for quite some time; if that were change anywhere it might be along Gerturde Street but I think that's unlikely to be honest.

Independent retailers are our target and we're speaking to overseas brands who don't currently have a presence in the Melbourne market. Possibly a publishing or cycling apparel outlet, mind you we're looking to bring a number of brands to this site. In general I think this end of Smith Street is just amazing..it's really interesting. To see brands like Aesop next door, David Bromley doing his thing across the road, Double Monk, its a really positive thing and we're not looking to disturb the vibe of the area by introducing inappropriate retailers.

Clearly Neometro prides itself/beats the drum on the high quality living spaces you deliver?

I personally take the view if you deliver a well designed, beautiful space for people to live in, it has an impact upon their wellbeing and happiness - it's a critical factor which is quite often is overlooked. In saying that I'm not being defensive of the fact that we're selling apartments here between $495,000- $800,000, that is what it is. But I would argue that we're selling homes that people will be happy in as opposed to selling glossy pictures of what apartments might look like and then finding out a large margin exists between render and reality.

Without sounding in any way presumptuous on behalf of Neometro, I think we can play a small role in leading the sector toward a more socially driven outlook, and I think that's something that is possible. It's a sector that has a long way to go.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Image8_17.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="9 Smith Street, internally and externally. Images © Neometro"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Image8_17.jpg?itok=wptQDhiA" style="height:211px; width:580px" title="9 Smith Street, internally and externally. Images © Neometro"></a>

<figcaption>9 Smith Street, internally and externally. Images © Neometro</figcaption></figure>Any plans to upscale to high-rise projects?

I think we would be reluctant to deliver a project over 80 apartments; we want to grow as a business doing more of the same as opposed to doing huge projects. A critical factor is depth of market as we find that with a quality of product, it's difficult to sell 200 units in an efficient timeframe whereas selling 50 units is doable, plus we have a focus on the owner occupier market with our projects which demands more intimate developments.

So brand recognition and hitting the target market are critical to Neometro?

Many developers sell through financial planning channels, we don't at all so sales are largely to owner-occupiers and sold by Neometro, not by some accountant in Wollongong. It's been very interesting in terms of Neometro being able to effectively articulate who we are and what we do to our market.

Neometro is in business to make a commercial return but we're also in business to make homes which we're immensely proud of. From a design perspective and in terms of build quality and amenity, I think we've articulated what we do a bit better in this project than what we have in others.

We're proud of what we do, if you look at our credentials it paints a history of the projects we've completed and it also talks about what we've done from a social and community perspective.

What's next for Neometro?

We're about to start construction on George Corner, it's a great project. We're also halfway through Walsh Street, South Yarra and are about to start construction on a project in Toorak.

Right now we're also looking at three other development sites, one south of the river and two north which in a broad sense are not dissimilar to what we've done here at 9 Smith Street. One in particular has a very substantial community interface to it for a variety of reasons - it will be one interesting project!
</body></html>

silvermb

James Tutton on all things Urban (continued)

<html><body>
On Monday, the Premier and Planning Minister released the final <a href="http://planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/Plan-Melbourne" target="_blank">Plan Melbourne</a> strategy. Widely reported by many media outlets were headline figures such as Melbourne's population in 2051 being revised up to over 7.5 million.

With a multitude of numbers strewn throughout the document suite, it is quite easy to lose perspective of what many of the figures - new dwelling numbers especially - could actually translate in to. How much new urbanism will Melbourne need to build to reach the 2031 and 2050 forecasts?

The old nugget of committing to a "permanent" growth boundary gets its five minutes of extra fame, but most importantly throughout the <a href="http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/implementation" target="_blank">Implementation Chapter</a>, a breakdown is provided on the forecast required dwellings in each of the five sub-regions.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/plan_melb_central_subregion_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The central sub-region from Plan Melbourne"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="399" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/plan_melb_central_subregion_0.jpg?itok=3OCbtkCX" title="The central sub-region from Plan Melbourne" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The central sub-region from Plan Melbourne</figcaption></figure>The central sub-region, shown above, includes the Local Government Areas of Melbourne, Maribyrnong, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra. The current population of this sub-region is 485,000 and by 2031 there is a forecast population growth of between 230,000 and 280,000 being housed in 120,000 to 150,000 new dwellings.

Unlike the other four, the central sub-region is forecast to almost exclusively meet dwelling demand through apartments (100,000-120,000), townhouses, units and flats (15,000-25,000) and a comparatively minuscule 'zero' to 10,000 detached houses bringing up the rear.

To put it into a confronting yet important perspective, the forecast 120,000 new dwellings by 2031 in the central sub-region is the equivalent of:

190x skyscrapers of similar size to EQ Tower (623 apartments).

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/V02_EXT_Skyline%20Aerial%20View_LR.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="EQ Tower - image copyright Elenberg Fraser"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="364" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/V02_EXT_Skyline%20Aerial%20View_LR.jpg?itok=CbwuqrX7" title="EQ Tower - image copyright Elenberg Fraser" width="580"></a>

600x mid-rise developments similar in size to Teri Apartments in South Melbourne (195 apartments).

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/terism.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Teri Apartments - image copyright Baldasso Cortese"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="389" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/terism.jpg?itok=p7dbF8JM" title="Teri Apartments - image copyright Baldasso Cortese" width="580"></a>

1900x low-rise developments around the same size as You &amp; I Apartments in Collingwood (63 apartments).

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/ExteriorFacade02_0_0.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="You &amp; I - image copyright ICD Property"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="401" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ExteriorFacade02_0_0.jpg?itok=GCFAaaqM" title="You &amp; I - image copyright ICD Property" width="580"></a>

7000x urban corridor in-fill developments the same size as 688-690 High Street in Thornbury (17 apartments).

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/RENDER001_Exterior_011.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="688-690 High Street Thornbury - image copyright Fraher Design 3D"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="321" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/RENDER001_Exterior_011.jpg?itok=1yOB8TbV" title="688-690 High Street Thornbury - image copyright Fraher Design 3D" width="580"></a>

Reality suggests the inner five councils in the central sub-region will see a mix of all the above - especially if the aforementioned councils liberally implement the new Residential Growth Zone - and just as many apartments are forecast to be built in the other four sub-regions plus many more townhouses and units.

While there is just cause to debate what shape and form Melbourne's new urbanism will look like, how it will function and who it will cater for, the next time you read about an "oversupply" of apartments in Central Melbourne just take a moment to think about the numbers Plan Melbourne puts forward.

We owe a great deal of thanks to a very special group of urbanist thinkers who in the 1980s, when we as a city did a lot of soul searching, put us on this trajectory where we now find State Governments of either colour taking density seriously.

There is a big job to do. Welcome to the new paradigm Melbourne, we have well and truly entered the urbanist's age.
</body></html>

How much urbanism will central Melbourne need to build by 2031?

<html><body>
Top image: What a future Melbourne could look like if growth was concentrated in the inner city without middle suburban infill. (Monash Architecture Studio, MADA) – <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/field/image/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-09%20at%204.07.22%20pm.jpg" target="_blank">view larger version</a> (opens in new window)

<a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3222.0main+features82012%20(base)%20to%202101">Melbourne, currently a city of 4.2 million people, is projected to grow to a population between 7.6 and 9.8 million by 2061</a>. There is almost no aspect of the city and its functioning that will not be greatly affected by this change; transport, the environment, the economy and agriculture and all areas that will be impacted, likely in challenging ways. The most basic question, however, that is posed by this massive change ahead of us is where we will house this increase in population.

Plan Melbourne, the state government’s metropolitan planning strategy estimates that, of the million or so new dwellings that will need to be constructed between now and 2050, 20% will be in the central city and surrounds (defined as the municipalities of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Yarra, Stonnington and Maribyrnong), 38% in other established suburbs and 42% in greenfield growth area. This is a change from the distribution envisaged by the strategy’s predecessor, Melbourne 2030, which allocated only 31% of growth in outer growth areas, with a larger proportion of growth to be accommodated in compact “activity centres” across the metropolis.

Unfettered fringe development is highly problematic. <a href="http://www.earthsharing.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Curtin_Sustainability_Paper_0209.pdf">For starters, the cost of providing infrastructure to greenfield sites is $300 million higher per 1000 dwellings than the cost of upgrading infrastructure for the same number of dwellings in existing urban areas</a>. There is also the issue of arable land being used instead for residential uses, increased car dependency and so forth.

So what is the alternative? One is massively building up our CBD and inner city areas, which are close to transport, jobs and services, and where brownfield redevelopment can yield inner-city high-density neighbourhoods. The Victorian Government is enthusiastic about this possibility, envisioning an “expanded central city” including future redevelopment precincts such as Fishermans Bend and E-Gate, as well as urban renewal in <a href="/developments/footscray-vic-3011">Footscray</a> and <a href="/new-apartments/north-melbourne-vic-3051">North Melbourne</a>.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-09%20at%203.49.45%20pm.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title=" Plan Melbourne"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="338" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-09%20at%203.49.45%20pm.jpg?itok=ZXQwERj5" title=" Plan Melbourne" width="580"></a>

The expanded Central City. Image: Plan Melbourne

When this concept was announced in 2012, Planning Minister Matthew Guy said: “Many people are concerned about high rise towers dominating quiet suburban streets, so we need to ask if high rise should be primarily concentrated in the inner city to take growth pressure off Melbourne's existing suburbs, while also capitalising on existing infrastructure.”

This sounds reasonable enough. But are these inner growth areas enough to accommodate our population growth and take pressure off infrastructure-poor growth areas?

<a href="http://www.futuremelbournenetwork.org/discussion/jobs-and-housing/">At Future Melbourne Network’s seminar last month on jobs and housing challenges facing Melbourne in the future</a>, Professor Shane Murray, Dean of the Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture at Monash University, presented a provocative image (top) of what a future Melbourne could look like if growth was directed only to the inner and fringe areas, without infill and densification in the city’s middle suburbs. <a href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/123483/20140224-0713/Proceedings_R.pdf">This was part of a broader speculation into the possibilities and implications of different urban renewal approaches</a>. He also showed how this might lead to increased low-density fringe development and the expansion of our city’s footprint beyond even the latest extension of its growth boundary (below).

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-09%20at%203.41.36%20pm.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title=" Monash Architecture Studio, MADA"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="411" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-09%20at%203.41.36%20pm.jpg?itok=lN_8aqI_" title=" Monash Architecture Studio, MADA" width="580"></a>

How a future Melbourne might sprawl beyond its current growth areas without middle suburban infill. Image: Monash Architecture Studio, MADA

Is this the city we want? I would argue not. Such an expanded-CBD-on-steroids would accommodate a huge number of jobs and residents, but would be a cavern of endless super-tall skyscrapers, windy and sunless. It would also fail to deliver housing choice for those who would prefer not to live in tiny high-rise apartments. While many, especially on this website and related forums (myself included), would relish a taller, more dense Melbourne, I believe fewer would take the extreme possibility depicted above as desirable. Also undesirable would be the continuing sprawl the edges, for reasons discussed above.

Densification and smart accommodation of population growth can be achieved in ways other than this vision of Manhattan or Hong Kong transplanted onto our city. Indeed, greater density would bring benefits such as a smaller environmental footprints and the greater potential for service-rich, walkable areas to live in. At last month’s Future Melbourne Network seminar, Professor Murray argued that Melbourne’s middle suburbia had potential to accommodate a large amount of population growth, in the form of low- to mid-rise infill development. <a href="http://www.soacconference.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Bertram-Structure-S.pdf">This would occur more efficiently - and therefore be more affordable - he said, if it could be organised at a precinct scale, rather than piecemeal as individual landowners decide to redevelop</a>.

<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-10%20at%202.32.43%20pm.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title=" Monash Architecture Studio, MADA"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="393" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Screen%20Shot%202014-05-10%20at%202.32.43%20pm.jpg?itok=_P1xjm8S" title=" Monash Architecture Studio, MADA" width="580"></a>

An indication of middle suburban infill at a precinct, rather than piecemeal, scale. Image: Monash Architecture Studio, MADA

One potential barrier to this is the new residential zones that are being implemented, especially in the high proportion of land that councils are choosing to zone as “Neighbourhood Residential Zone”, limiting both building height and dwellings per lot. <a href="/news/new-residential-zones-what-does-this-mean-for-melbourne">This issue has previously been discussed on this website by Ratio Consultants’ Colleen Peterson</a>.

Opinions are divergent on this topic. Some believe that the higher density possible in non-residential areas such as shopping strips (typically zoned Business - soon to be Commercial) and in Activity Centres mean that the restrictions of the new residential zones won’t preclude accommodation of growth through densification in the existing urban area of the city. However, as Professor Murray states, the middle suburbs have a lot of potential to take on growth without losing their character and amenity. To achieve this - to avoid an even more sprawling city with a super-dense core - will take not only negotiating new zones and residents’ concerns about density but new and innovative ways of approaching infill development to achieve positive outcomes for new and existing residents, suburbs and communities.

Alexander Sheko is a foundation member of the <a href="http://www.futuremelbournenetwork.org" target="_blank">Future Melbourne Network</a> and a student at the University of Melbourne.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not represent the Future Melbourne Network or any other organisation.
</body></html>

apsheko

Melbourne's Growing Pains and the Middle Suburbs

<html><body>
Recently Apartments.com.au sat down with James Tutton for a thoroughly interesting, jovial and at times colourful interview on all things urban. A man whose credentials are impressive as they are varied, chief amongst them is co-director of property development firm Neometro.

<blockquote>
James joined Neometro four years ago to drive the development and commercial side of the business while maintaining its strong design integrity. James is the entrepreneur behind the immensely successful Moonlight Cinema, pioneering the outdoor cinema business in Australia and eventually selling it to an ASX listed corporate group in 2006.
<cite><a href="http://neometro.com.au/cms-our-people/james-tutton.phps">Our People: Neometro Developments</a></cite>
</blockquote>

<h2>The CV</h2>

<ul>
<li>Board Member - B Corporation, a not for profit organization which provides assessment &amp; certification for companies seeking to deliver positive social &amp; environmental outcomes while ensuring strong financial performance.</li>
	<li>Non-Executive Director - Shout For Good, a web and app based fundraising platform. Shout aims to leverage technology and social media to generate micro donations for its clients while providing consumers with a streamlined &amp; functional user experience</li>
	<li>Co-founder / Director - SMILING MIND - a "modern meditation for young people". An entrepreneurial not for profit organisation that has been established to teach young people Mindfulness Meditation as a stress management &amp; resilience tool.</li>
	<li>Director / owner - NEOMETRO</li>
</ul>
<h2>The interview</h2>

We begin by asking James: what challenges surround increased density and appropriately sized urban development?

The inefficiency is evident. I'm not a planner, just a guy with a BA in Philosophy, however to me it does not seem like rocket science. It makes so much more sense to build housing which is in immediate proximity to infrastructure, transport, employment, education and everything else. You go out there and look at broad acre developments; this is inefficient in the context of environmental issues, in context of community happiness, transport issues, hospitals etc. It goes on and on and on.

You then look at towers and think... well? I'm not saying towers are wrong, they absolutely have their place but it's about finding an appropriate balance. One of the things if find quite challenging is that you can have a precinct in immediate proximity to rail infrastructure etc. earmarked for medium density development in an area where there are ostensibly progressive thinkers, who then take developers to VCAT with the view that oh no you're evil, you're creating homes for people. That's so hypocritical!

It's the core of a real NIMBY culture which is just is not that positive. It's generalising but some of the views coming out of the Greens have been completely at odds with sensible environmentally focused planning. It can be madness.

Will planning zone reforms coax Neometro into markets beyond its established inner Melbourne footprint?

I look at Brunswick and think absolutely, there are opportunities there. Although can you afford to do an apartment development in Dandenong? No, that's the economics being what they are.

We love Brunswick; there's a lot of poor quality development there although my view is the poor quality development is not a reflection of demand. There's a lot of demand for high quality development from a buyers perspective.

Can you elaborate on why outer ring locations such as Dandenong or Frankston are difficult apartment market from a developers perspective?

It's a mixture of factors. Let me begin by saying inner city sites carry a higher land price therefore you need to get density to pay for it - a $6-7 million dollar slice of land requires you get yield by height. Construction costs being what they are dictate that lower density dwellings such as townhouses are not possible for the site. Should you go to Dandenong, the economics are that the land is cheaper and therefore building townhouses is more efficient in that context, and also meets the level of buyer demand.

I look at Frankston from a planning perspective and think why isn't there fast train and medium density housing in Frankston? It's an absolute no brainer and would entice property developers, but I don't think its going to happen.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Dandenong_CBD_in_2013_as_viewed_from_railway_station.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Dandenong anyone? Image courtesy Wikipedia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Dandenong_CBD_in_2013_as_viewed_from_railway_station.png?itok=VvfDRcD4" style="height:397px; width:580px" title="Dandenong anyone? Image courtesy Wikipedia"></a>

<figcaption>Dandenong anyone? Image courtesy Wikipedia</figcaption></figure>Is Government investing public money via schemes such as Revitalising Central Dandenong a worthwhile pursuit?

Not my view as a professional, just my lay view but there's a tipping point where things become viable. I mentioned Frankston in the sense that I feel it's very underpriced from a residential perspective because there is no quality public transport infrastructure through to Melbourne. It's just my two cents worth but like Dandenong there is an amount of stigma attached in a social context which has an impact on prospective buyers.

Long term and with further investment it's highly doable. Box Hill for instance is now in its own right more of an economic hub and on top of that it's closer to Melbourne which is attractive to potential apartment buyers. Whereas in Frankston the rail line is not that workable which limits connectivity to Melbourne, although the beaches are beautiful and it has the infrastructure that goes with a small city.

What would make a property developer venture into outer suburbs?

Should the factors that we've discussed become reality, from Neometro's perspective we'd also need to have the comfort that people would recognise what we offer. Even in Fitzroy where we have a design literate audience, some people come along and say Neometro is selling product for x thousands per square metre and the bloke down the road is selling it for one thousand dollars a square metre less. On top of that Neometro's apartments are proportionately larger, because that's just what a nice apartments need to be.

The guy down the road has a dog box; you apply the lower per square metre rate and the fact is that it's smaller - the actual quantum in dollar terms between one apartment and another becomes significant. Around here (Fitzroy) people look at that and understand it - 'I'm getting what I pay for' - that's the key.

But when you hit outer suburbs such as Dandenong, do you have a buyer group who actually understand the variations of quality on offer? That's a challenging thing, I'm not saying they don't, I'm just not personally convinced there is that market.

<h2>To be continued</h2>

During this week, <a href="/news/james-tutton-on-all-things-urban-continued" target="_blank">part two of our chat</a> with James Tutton will focus on B Corporation status and what it means, inner-city issues plus Neometero's current and future direction.
</body></html>

James Tutton on all things Urban

<html><body>
A peculiar thing happened on the way to Bacchus Marsh... in 2008 mind you. Heading west for one reason or another, I noticed a tower crane on the horizon in Caroline Springs.
Relatively new Caroline Springs, tower crane, high-density development on the forsaken fringes of Melbourne? Hickory at the time were constructing a six level serviced apartment complex (now Quest branded) in the upstart western locale. For a suburb 25 kilometres from the big smoke, in an area considered beyond the borders of civilisation by many urbanists, this was confounding.
<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/121_04-12-2012_4370.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The first strike. Image © Hickory"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="284" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/121_04-12-2012_4370.jpg?itok=-7gVdNFP" title="The first strike. Image © Hickory" width="580"></a>
More confounding has been the restrained yet constant thrust in apartment living post-2008 surrounding Lake Caroline, the suburb's principal activity area. What can this be attributed to given there are no public transport options save for the odd bus, solid retail offerings yet measly entertainment options. Let's not forget comparable house &amp; land packages within close proximity as well.
Could it be a shift in individual living preferences? It seems that like so many middle and outer suburbs in Melbourne - even Caroline Springs - have fallen for a fundamental cultural acceptance of high-density living. Apartment dwellers are a minority in Caroline Springs, but a growing minority.
Added to the aforementioned Quest serviced apartment complex is the Mercure Hotel Caroline Springs and a gaggle of small to medium-rise apartment buildings, the most noteworthy of which are:
Cascada &amp; Belise. Both via Boom Property Group with Cascada at registrations while Belise is at sales. Combined 136 apartments.
<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Image26cs.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Belise &amp; Cascada. Image © Boom Property Group"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="208" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Image26cs.jpg?itok=UCDhXiIS" title="Belise &amp; Cascada. Image © Boom Property Group" width="580"></a>
Aqua Lakeside nearing completion whilst Woodward Way is freshly completed. Combined 156 apartments.
<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Image25cs.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Aqua Lakeside and Woodward Way. Image © Varcon and MASBuild"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="237" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Image25cs.jpg?itok=60H6K-G_" title="Aqua Lakeside and Woodward Way. Image © Varcon and MASBuild" width="580"></a>
Conceived by Metaxas Architects, Caravelle Lane (left) holds a planning permit while The Esplanade was completed during 2013. Combined 119 apartments.
<a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/Image28cs.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Caravelle Way and The Esplanade. Image © Metaxas and Figurehead"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="197" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/Image28cs.jpg?itok=YDTmpFQy" title="Caravelle Way and The Esplanade. Image © Metaxas and Figurehead" width="580"></a>
While apartment development increases, news broke last week that Caroline Springs will <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/projects/railway-stations/new-station-for-caroline-springs/" target="_blank">be serviced by a new railway station</a> located in neighbouring Ravenhall. With at-grade parking for 350 spaces, my only request is that another tower crane be used to create a community health hub/multi-level car park similar to the ultra impressive <a href="http://www.cundall.com/Projects/Euneva-Avenue-Community-Health-Facility.aspx" target="_blank">Euneva Complex</a> in Glen Waverley.
Too much too soon? Perhaps, but Caroline Springs has in part shifted toward a more robust urban environment by way of an increased penchant for high-density living. With plentiful brownfield sites around Lake Caroline, Caroline Springs will remain an interesting study as to how deeply high-density living can penetrate typical detached living, fringe Melbourne suburbs.
</body></html>

A funny thing happened on the way to the Marsh

<html><body>
South Fitzroy has never been short of character or characters for that matter. Everyone from Mary McKillop to Squizzy Taylor has been part of its social history and despite its recent gentrification it still has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in Australia. It doesn’t surprise therefore that its urbanism also has an equally diverse character.

In The Fitzroy Historical Society’s terms South Fitzroy’s “compatible mix of light industry and residential housing”, was developed progressively over time in tune with its cultural and economic history. On the other hand Robin Boyd’s broader fulmination of Melbourne’s inner suburbs as “a dressmakers floor strewn with the snippings of style”, suggests a cacophony of tasteless ignorance.

Both descriptions paint the picture of a diverse urban character, though from diametrically opposite points of view. The operative interpretation used by Yarracity Planning however is based on the South Fitzroy Conservation Study which describes the precinct as one of Melbourne's most historically intact and of a “predominantly nineteenth century character”. This implies a consistency of urban form South Fitzroy simply doesn’t have. The diversity of its nineteenth century character which manifests a broad variety of different styles, building types and scales is all but ignored. Nor does it acknowledge the post war industrial architecture or the subsequent modern expressions that pepper its fabric with increasing regularity as one ventures north. Alas this conservation study which favors a consistency of urban form has been used as the basis for Neighbourhood Character regulation in the precinct.

Having practiced there for twenty five years and conducted urban character studies for numerous projects over that period, my view was that its character is a form of “urban sampling” or “jazz”, where streetscapes are expressed in syncopated rhythms of different architectures and scales. To me its urbanism read as a authentic register of the cultural and socio economic forces that shaped it. Its syncopation was in my view the essential aspect of its character because it reflected the rhythms of a uniquely Australian urbanism, not the shrill of “the violence of artistic conflict”, and the abject lack of taste this Boyd phrase implies.

This was (until the planning profession got hold of it), an honest urbanism unaffected by the dress code of the comparatively refined European urban preferences which planners have increasingly been regulating for since the early nineties. Their preference for more regular rhythms with gradual transitions is as much a nostalgia for European urbanism as it is the denial of Australian identity. Effectively urban character regulation amounts to a form of urban averaging which splits the difference between adjoining heights and set backs for infill development. Streetscapes that have been shaped by in this way read as a form of urban correctness, with upper floor setbacks and chamfers that is neither European nor Australian. The result is twee.

Aside from the differences in aesthetic preference embodied in the urban character interpretations above it is important to note that they predominantly recognise urban diversity as the essential common factor. It is remiss therefore that conservation and urban character studies focus on establishing urban similarities and consistency to determine a particular urban character and it is unfortunate these regulations have been used as a basis for the new Residential Zones gazetted in Victoria on July 1st 2013.

Sceptics could assert all of the above interpretations are on a par with reading tea leaves since they rely more on the bias of the observer than on the observed. They would be correct in reasoning the dilemmas in determining tendencies of either urban similarity or diversity is akin to questions of “is the cup half empty or half full”, since the adjudicator’s preferences rather than accurate measurement determines these answers. It is important to note however that assuming our cities survive the next millennium urban diversity will obviously be impossible to avoid.

The political expediency of the new residential zones which endorse NIMBY activism to limit both densities and heights in inner suburbs whilst promoting them in areas where there are few residents, like Fishermens Bend, Docklands and E gate, for example, could not be more transparent. It concentrates heights and densities where opposition is limited and limits them where opposition is great. This NIMBY legislation is being sold on the basis of democratic principles, and planning innovation. The truth is that Victoria’s planning policy is NIMBY inspired.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/PastedGraphic-4.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Artist"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/PastedGraphic-4.jpg?itok=EBC6zlVx" title="The Artist" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Artist</figcaption></figure>Here democracy has been used as the decoy for a lack in political leadership, since the city’s liveability and its cultural and social prosperity depends on its function as a whole, not on the political clout of inner city lobby groups. Ironically it has been the greens who have lead the charge on limiting inner city heights and densities, contradicting their platform on carbon reduction.

These questions of character and how they are determined has prompted the following summary on “NKYA”, akka “The Cheesegrater”, now “The Artist”, dubbed the test case for Labour’s new planning policy 2030 back in 2002, when it made headlines. Then NKYA successfully challenged neighbourhood character regulation which will now become entrenched, gaining substantial legislative force when Residential Zones are implemented in Victoria on July 1st 2014.

In 2002 when the planning application was lodged, Neighborhood Character Policy in Yarracity had been in operation for the best part of seven years and the bulk of proposed medium density projects in the inner suburbs, (irrespective of their compliance or otherwise), were vigorously objected to on the grounds of breaching character guidelines.

In expectation of a massive backlash, I completed a comprehensive urban character study immediately surrounding the site also incorporating large tracts of South Fitzroy.

The study comprised a bound volume of several hundreds of photograph’s and a preface that reinterpreted South Fitzroy’s Neighborhood Character as one of diversity. It rejected both the south Fitzroy conservation study and Boyd’s “Australian Ugliness”, proposing an affirmative interpretation of Australian urbanism.

The planning process that followed was punctuated by a succession of name calling that served as a sardonic echo of the contradictions inherent in the administration of the planning process. “NKYA” was chosen in demurral of the status envy branding that real estate advertising revels in. Composed of the first letters of the streets surrounding the site, Napier,Kerr, Young and Argyle, the acronym expressed a neutrality that rebutted the hollow marketing of real estate hype that sells the sizzle and forgets the sausage.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/PastedGraphic-6.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Artist"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/PastedGraphic-6.jpg?itok=OiR3FXrI" title="The Artist" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Artist</figcaption></figure>Objectors responded with “The Cheesegrater” which prevailed, until “The Artist” was coined by a new development consortium. This prompted objectors to insert “Bullshit” between adjective and noun on the numerous advertising billboards surrounding the site proclaiming it “The Bullshit Artist”. I would like to think this obvious reflex was in contempt of the expert witness evidence presented at the eight day VCAT hearings where heritage, planning, traffic and architectural witnesses diametrically opposed one another’s views on professional grounds.

The quasi legalese of the VCAT system belies the inherent hypocrisy of the process where experts contradict each others evidence with panache. In this case, against the councils refusal, the wishes of three thousand objectors and the contrary arguments of opposing expert witnesses supporting the South Fitzroy Conservation Study, the panel members were persuaded by the notion of Urban Sampling or Jazz. Controversially, they granted a permit justifying their decision in terms of the supporting neighborhood character study and because in their view, NKYA was an exemplary design.

In 2011 I revisited the ironies of the experience in an exhibition titled “Boyd’s Error Planning’s Curse” expanding on my observations with an essay illustrated with collaged photographs of three kilometers of Fitzroy’s primary streetscapes. The exhibition expanded on the original neighborhood character study with an analysis by comparative reference.

It consisted of three rows of images mounted one above the other. The bottom row speculated on what may have become had contemporary planning regulations prevailed from the genesis of South Fitzroy, thereby promoting greater consistency of period, scale and character. The middle row illustrated the 2011 streetscape current at that time and the top row speculated on what might become if the regulations were relaxed and broadened to embrace the future.

The exhibition audience was then invited to choose between the three rows and on the evidence of their reactions, the overwhelming majority preferred the top row. Obviously, exercising preferences to simulations of theoretical pasts and futures in a gallery is one thing, and deciding on whether to object to a multi storey development next door, entirely another.

This contradiction of human behavior encapsulates the ironies of NIMBY urbanism which has become the subtext of Victoria’s planning regulation. When the democratic process fails in this way it is a sure sign that the system is in need of review. It is unfortunate that our most respected professional institutions, urban theorists and commentators are seldom listened to by government since heir recommendations measured against the weight of public opinion have virtually no political clout.

It doesn’t help that the political prism through which urban affairs reporters project their gaze on the public, makes urban planning policy look like a frightened rabbit in full flight as it dodges hounds from lobby groups on every side of politics zig zagging over the different political terrain of their vested interests. Making this important urban debate look like an intriguing battle between humble residents and ethically bereft developers sells newspapers and though it gives voice to respected urban commentators they remain voices in the wilderness, serving no other purpose than preserving the notion of free speech.

The consequences can be appalling. In this case planning delays were responsible for NKYA’s 30% price hike by the time it was sold off the plan in 2009. The delays were in part consequent of the 2004 housing downturn that spiraled after the spectacular collapse of Henry Kaye’s 120 company property spruiking empire.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/PastedGraphic-5.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Artist"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/PastedGraphic-5.jpg?itok=WAR978lJ" title="The Artist" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Artist</figcaption></figure>If the prolonged planning process had not ensued, apartments could have been sold a year prior avoiding the downturn. As a consequence NKYA was shelved until 2006 when a revised development consortium submitted new designs which VCAT refused. Several aborted re-submissions of the new design followed eventually prompting the new consortium to restrict their amendments to the internal courtyard and interiors. Maintaining the integrity of the original street facades they successfully submitted these revisions as an amendment to the originally approved planning permit.

Planning consultant, Tim Biles, described the final outcome as being “so similar to the original as to be considered practically identical”. By this he meant that “the ordinary man or woman in the street” would not be able to tell the difference.

It wasn’t until late 2011 that the construction of its upper levels were completed, marking the tenth anniversary of the year in which its design had begun. By the time sales commenced, inner city apartment prices had risen from six thousand dollars per metre to between eight and ten thousand dollars per metre, a cost that would be borne by the public. To this we can add the substantial taxpayer funded administrative costs of VCAT and Yarra City Council plus their consultant fees paid to opposing planners, heritage architects, barristers and other consultants representing objectors.

If NKYA, the Cheesegrater, the Artist or Bullshit Artist whatever else you may be inclined to call it, was an exception rather than the rule, then the planning process it was subjected to would be no less hypocritical or an outrageous waste of time and money. The tragedy is that minor two storey additions often suffer the same fate.

<h2>Postscript</h2>

In asking a former Yarracity mayor who lead the opposition against NKYA what he thought of “The Cheesegrater” a decade on:

<blockquote>
My views of the Cheesegrater are that I think it takes time to bring a community around to accepting change, and that it rarely occurs within the timeframe of any particular individual project.
<cite>Councilor Geoff Barbour</cite>
</blockquote>

The three hundred or so residents who now live at “The Artist”, have formed a strong community, they love it, however if something of the same height was to obscure their views next door, they would all of course passionately object.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/PastedGraphic-7.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The Artist"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="870" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/PastedGraphic-7.jpg?itok=1jCgkE08" title="The Artist" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The Artist</figcaption></figure><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Rijavec">Ivan Rijavec</a> is an acclaimed Australian Architectural and Urban Designer and managing director of <a href="http://www.rijavec.com/">Rijavec Architects</a> and <a href="http://www.citiniche.com.au/?refer=urbanmelbourne">Citiniche</a>. He has received numerous Merit Awards and been widely published in numerous books, journals and web platforms. He is fellow of the Australian Institute of Architects and is a sessional tutor at RMIT.
</body></html>

Urban Affairs

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Urban Affairs

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News